Search Forums

If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Re: Why is Pedophilia Categorized as a Disorder?

Originally Posted by SharmaK

There seems to be a lot of issues about naming things the right way. But we both already agree that it is social in nature so why don’t you go along with what society has deemed to be a fitting description and categorization?

The op takes issue with the way APA classifies pedophilia. So no, I'm not going to just agree to something that I think is wrong.

Originally Posted by SharmaK

On the one hand, it is obvious speaking to oneself and believing in something that doesn’t exist but acting as if it does is by definition a delusion. Yet you go along with the flow that praying is not a delusion and neither is believing in Gods and angels and ghosts and monsters. It’s kinda obvious that Joseph, Jesus’ father, is also an actual pedophile too, right? Yet, somehow, your non-comment on the matter is giving him a free pass (no doubt, also using “societal-norms” as an excuse). Why is that? Why do you call such claims, using your same exact logic, get called “crap” by your very self when I brought it up earlier.

The point is that you appear to be hypocritical in how you are treating homosexuality versus religion. And that needs explaining. Please do so.

Trying to drag my religious views into this thread is a Red Herring fallacy.

Originally Posted by SharmaK

All this other nonsense about whether or not homosexuality and pedophilia are orientations or deviant or non-normal are irrelevant.

They are a side issue, but part of the context of the explanation for APA making changes.

Originally Posted by SharmaK

No-one wants pedophiles looking after their children obviously

Exactly the point.

Originally Posted by SharmaK

The people that fear that necrophiliacs and zoophiliacs are going to get protections are clearly deluded and ignorant about sexual matters anyway. I think those proclivities are already so frowned upon that and very rare that I think it’s really a straw man argument about having lost the culture war on homosexuality.

Do you even know what a Straw Man is, Sharm? Apparently not. Nec/Zoo were part of an explanation and context, not an argument. If you don't get that, then, oh well.

Originally Posted by SharmaK

If you’re attacking homosexuality because of other kinds of sexuality you don’t approve of then you will always lose the argument because the larger society, world society, is beginning to learn more and are responding with sympathy. Homosexuality should be no more an issue than if someone likes S&M or prefers fat ladies or whatever.

Now that IS a Straw Man fallacy, because I have not attacked homosexuality in this thread.

Originally Posted by SharmaK

... if we have to fiddle the books a bit... then so be it.

Exactly the attitude of the public and the APA, and why their description of Pedophilia Disorder is a fraud.

Originally Posted by SharmaK

Otherwise, concede that you are delusional and that Joseph was a pedophile.

I don't understand why you and Pissass are so intent on bringing religion into every thread. If it is such a big deal to you, then start your own thread, because it is just another red herring in this one.

It isn't just public pressure. The APA also evolves classifications over time as psychology learns new things. If it doesn't, we might as well go back to the 1800's where a woman experiencing Post-Partum depression was simply classified as having "hysteria" or where we might have lobotomized a schizophrenic. It isn't always about public pressure.

From what I can tell, and from what I've offered as support in this thread, on the hot-button social issues of homosexuality and pedophilia the APA has folded to activism when the heat became too great.

"If we lose freedom here, there is no place to escape to. This is the last stand on Earth." - Ronald Reagan

Re: Why is Pedophilia Categorized as a Disorder?

Originally Posted by evensaul

The op takes issue with the way APA classifies pedophilia. So no, I'm not going to just agree to something that I think is wrong.

Oh. Is that the issue? That you disagree with how an organization whose job it is to do one thing? In that case, it's quite possible, if not likely, that you don't know all the issues. Are you a psychologist?

And given all the other reasons from history about how classifications are basically take their cues from society, which I trust, you should fully understand by now, then you're really disagreeing with society, using this classification, which impacts you none, as a proxy argument.

Trying to drag my religious views into this thread is a Red Herring fallacy.

Your personal religion has nothing to do with it. I am pointing out the free pass religion gets in some delusions and hysteria. Do you agree that Joseph is technically a pedophile? The challenge still stands that you have to explain why you support APA not being consistent on religion but not being consistent on Homosexuality. This is nothing to do with your personal beliefs but how you are dealing with the APA's inconsistencies.

Do you even know what a Straw Man is, Sharm? Apparently not. Nec/Zoo were part of an explanation and context, not an argument. If you don't get that, then, oh well.

Putting N/Z/P in the same bucket as a H is a straw man. You're saying the other three will become the norm just as H has. It's a terrible view of the world from those people you are trying to explain.

Now that IS a Straw Man fallacy, because I have not attacked homosexuality in this thread.

Hmm.

Exactly the attitude of the public and the APA, and why their description of Pedophilia Disorder is a fraud.

Yes, which is what they do all the time! Even for religion. If the APA is a fraud then so be it - don't use it. I don't even know why you think this is even a issue to discuss!

I don't understand why you and Pissass are so intent on bringing religion into every thread. If it is such a big deal to you, then start your own thread, because it is just another red herring in this one.

I have explained multiple times that religious acts can be treated as hysteria or delusional. I have challenged you to explain your hypocrisy on the matter and it's not a red herring. It is literally the same argument you are making about P but replacing it with religion.

Why is Pedophilia Categorized as a Disorder?

Sharm, your posts have devolved into a scattershot of red herrings that are not worth my taking time to respond. Up your game, or be ignored. Your choice.

Hmm. Iím disappointed that you can dish it but canít take it. I think youíve realized your position is either unsupported or hypocritical or even pointless.

I end with the DSM-5 definition of Delusional Disorder:

A false belief based on incorrect inference about external reality that is firmly held despite what almost everyone else believes and despite what constitutes incontrovertible and obvious proof or evidence to the contrary. The belief is not ordinarily accepted by other members of the persons's culture or subculture (i.e., it is not an article of religious faith). When a false belief involves a value judgment, it is regarded as a delusion only when the judgment is so extreme as to defy credibility. Delusional conviction can sometimes be inferred from an overvalued idea (in which case the individual has an unreasonable belief or idea but does not hold it as firmly as is the case with a delusion). (DSM-5, p.819)

Note the get out of jail free card religion gets: The belief is not ordinarily accepted by other members of the persons's culture or subculture (i.e., it is not an article of religious faith).

This is no different a concession to saying that P is not an orientation; itís bowing to the same societal norms and consistent with the goal of DSM, which is to describe problem areas.

Itís unfortunate that you have to resort to insults to end your involvement in your own thread but until you see the bigger picture you will always end up being frustrated at the world: you are not the only point of view in this world - your earlier surprise that diagnoses change in time and can be different within the same geographic region tells me that you need to step back and look at how you approach other problems and not be so dogmatic.

This isnít the first thread that youíve behaved ungenerously (the other one being your flawed claim that atheists pray) and that speaks volumes about how you conduct yourself: as a brat that takes his toys away when they donít get their way or if the worldís responses arenít to your liking. Please try and grow up by the time we get to our next encounter - we had reached a point of agreement and then you had to spoil it all.

Why is Pedophilia Categorized as a Disorder?

Itís the same topic: why is DSM inconsistent in the way with its descriptions of disorders. Answer: new information and social norms.

You disagree with it because you think P & H are the same in that theyíre sexual orientations and the DSM should therefore treat them the same. Yet for religion, where DSM gives it literally a free pass, you are fine with that inconsistency.

You have to be consistent in your understanding of DSM and

A) accept that DSM is correct to take into account societal norms in how it treats P, and by extension religion is correctly not treated as a delusion.

Or

B) continue to say that DSM is wrong about P and by extension agree that religion is a delusion.

You canít have it both ways. Though since you havenít conceded your OP, I have to take it that you believe religion is a delusion and the DSM shouldnít be treating it differently. Your call.

To say this point isnít relevant is to not understand your own OP.

*********

Just for grins, I rewrote your OP, keeping much of the same logic you used. Interestingly, many of the characterizations (persecurtory, referential, grandiose, eroani, nihilistic, somatic) all have their counterparts in common religious behaviors and activities. It's little wonder they had to add the get out of jail clause later on. But I hope that you're seeing my point now - that your OP and my rewrite have the same questions.

: to address God or a god with adoration, confession, supplication, or thanksgivingThe American Psychiatric Association defines a delusional disorder as a condition in which peoplehttps://emedicine.medscape.com/article/292991-overviewleast 1 month of delusions but no other psychotic symptoms, according to the American Psychiatric Associationís Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition (DSM-5). [1]Delusions are false beliefs based on incorrect inference about external reality that persist despite the evidence to the contrary; these beliefs are not ordinarily accepted by other members of the person's culture or subculture. Delusions can be characterized as persecutory (i.e., belief that one is going to be harmed by an individual, organization or group), referential (i.e., belief that gestures, comments, or environmental cues are directed at oneself), grandiose (i.e., belief that the individual has exceptional abilities, wealth, or fame), erotomanic (i.e., a false belief that another individual is in love with him/her), nihilistic (i.e., a conviction that a major catastrophe will occur), or somatic (i.e., beliefs focused on bodily function or sensation). Because cognitive organization and reality resting are otherwise intact in delusional disorder, it has been described in the literature as "partial psychosis."

The above means that a big group of people, crazy homeless people and bag ladies, are being categorized as having a mental disorder based on legal guidelines of self harm or harming of others.

If religious conviction is not a choice (but rather a normal aspect of human existence), and being crazy is not a choice, shouldn't they be treated the same by the APA? [/FONT]

Re: Why is Pedophilia Categorized as a Disorder?

Originally Posted by evensaul

[/COLOR] From what I can tell, and from what I've offered as support in this thread, on the hot-button social issues of homosexuality and pedophilia the APA has folded to activism when the heat became too great.

When an organization changes its stance on something, some people are quick to assume that it has "folded" under pressure. The same thing happened to President Obama when his view changed on marriage equality. People assumed that he was just going with what was popular, and there is certainly enough evidence to support such a claim. There exists, however, another possibility. As new information and evidence comes to light, the stance will adjust accordingly. For example, let's say you make a claim that fire is hot. Let's say that I have never seen or experienced fire, so I don't believe you. You, then, show me that fire is hot. My belief will change because I experienced first hand that fire is hot.

For highly controversial topics such as homosexuality and pedophilia, categorizations are going to evolve. The human psyche is difficult to study because every person is unique and because gathering information that isn't colored by perception and personal beliefs is challenging. Therefore, the definitions will most likely change many more times as we discover new information.

I am curious to know how many other evolving definitions you feel are the result of "activism pressure." There are 5 editions of the DSM of Mental Disorders. Do you feel that other definitions and information have changed simply because they are pressured or is your claim limited to only controversial subjects? I am wondering, also, if you would feel the same if the APA changed the classification of homosexuality back to a mental disorder. Would you still believe that it was a result of the APA "folding" to activism?

But how about this:

The reason pedophilia is classified as a disorder is because acting on pedophilic urges causes harm to prepubescent children. It also causes mental distress and anguish (other than the social stigma) to the pedophile. I asked a psychiatrist in my local area, fyi.

On a personal note, why is a change of opinion or stance immediately assumed to be the result of "peer pressure?" Definitions of many things change as we learn new things. Is it so difficult to believe that someone possibly changed his/her mind because they learned something new?

So many people go out of their way to draw a parallel between homosexuality and pedophilia, refusing to admit that their stance on homosexuality is largely based on their religious beliefs. It's such an insidious route to take and a bit insulting to homosexual people.

It is not our abilities in life that show who we truly are; it is our choices. Albus Dumbledore in Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets

Re: Why is Pedophilia Categorized as a Disorder?

Originally Posted by ladykrimson

When an organization changes its stance on something, some people are quick to assume that it has "folded" under pressure.

In the instance of API & DSM I think there is enough evidence to show it changing homosexuality from a disorder to not being one (that does not assume it should have been classified as a disorder in the first place, just that is how it got removed).http://behaviorismandmentalhealth.co...hat-went-away/

"Then in 1970 gay activists protested against the APA convention in San Francisco. These scenes were repeated in 1971, and as people came out of the “closet” and felt empowered politically and socially, the APA directorate became increasingly uncomfortable with their stance. In 1973 the APA’s nomenclature task force recommended that homosexuality be declared normal. The trustees were not prepared to go that far, but they did vote to remove homosexuality from the list of mental illnesses by a vote of 13 to 0, with 2 abstentions. This decision was confirmed by a vote of the APA membership, and homosexuality was no longer listed in the seventh edition of DSM-II, which was issued in 1974.
What’s noteworthy about this is that the removal of homosexuality from the list of mental illnesses was not triggered by some scientific breakthrough. There was no new fact or set of facts that stimulated this major change. Rather, it was the simple reality that gay people started to kick up a fuss. They gained a voice and began to make themselves heard. And the APA reacted with truly astonishing speed. And with good reason. They realized intuitively that a protracted battle would have drawn increasing attention to the spurious nature of their entire taxonomy. So they quickly “cut loose” the gay community and forestalled any radical scrutiny of the DSM system generally.

"In 1973, the American Psychiatric Association (APA) asked all members attending its convention to vote on whether they believed homosexuality to be a mental disorder. 5,854 psychiatrists voted to remove homosexuality from the DSM, and 3,810 to retain it."
Note it was by a simple vote only! 5854 voted to take it out of DSM, 3810 voted to retain it.
No new studies or other information was utilized, just the current opinion of 5854 psychiatrists.

For highly controversial topics such as homosexuality and pedophilia, categorizations are going to evolve. The human psyche is difficult to study because every person is unique and because gathering information that isn't colored by perception and personal beliefs is challenging. Therefore, the definitions will most likely change many more times as we discover new information.

In the 1900's there was no such thing as "teenager" nor "adolescent".
If you look at the age of consent around the world 13-16 is pretty common. Certainly some 13's have gone thru puberty, but also, certainly not all or even most.

And as Sig says in post #27
" I actually think that some degree of pedophilia is not that unusual. Those who are attracted to youth, say, beyond the age of 12 are not that abnormal in an instinctual sense. In many primitive cultures, marriages happen at those ages. And technically they may well be sexually mature. It's just in our more complicated society, it is not yet an age we deem adult and thus outside of adult sexual relationships."

So many people go out of their way to draw a parallel between homosexuality and pedophilia, refusing to admit that their stance on homosexuality is largely based on their religious beliefs. It's such an insidious route to take and a bit insulting to homosexual people.

Agreed

However, I believe DSM is a deeply flawed book. It may be the best Psychiatry has at the moment, which shows how far we have to go before it enters the same "library" let alone the "page" as a medical textbook.

Those who are attracted to pre-pubescent children, I think are more non-normative and more dangerous partly because they well know that their desires will never be accepted as normal.

Since this has been "accepted" even a couple hundred years ago and still is in many countries today, how can you say it will "never" be accepted in the future???
We as a country have changed definitions of words before to make things that were unacceptable, now acceptable.

Trying to predict human behavior in the future is surely impossible with any degree of accuracy at the moment.

Re: Why is Pedophilia Categorized as a Disorder?

Originally Posted by Belthazor

In the instance of API & DSM I think there is enough evidence to show it changing homosexuality from a disorder to not being one (that does not assume it should have been classified as a disorder in the first place, just that is how it got removed).
...
No new studies or other information was utilized, just the current opinion of 5854 psychiatrists.

This is missing the original point, which was that the reason behind the change wasn't just because of public pressure. There were indeed multiple earlier studies (p. 10-11 here) prior to the change which showed that homosexuality shouldn't be classified as a disorder. It's interesting to note that most of these had to overcome difficulties due to the political climate at the time.

Further, the vote you reference took place after at least two panels held at APA conventions with the goal of discussing the matter, which included psychiatrists who had studied homosexuality who supported the change (p. 12-13 same source), as well as homosexuals putting the burden of proof on the medical community to prove that homosexuality was in fact a disorder.

Also, one of the determinations resulting from the panel was that mental disorders should be defined more accurately as having "regularly caused subjective distress or were associated with generalized impairment in social effectiveness of functioning" (p. 13), and not defined as "not something that lots of people are protesting about", which would be the case if they changed it only because of public protest.

So your phrasing of it being nothing more than the APA's vote in response to gay protests is highly inaccurate. The cause of the change was clearly much more (including results from studies and opinions of experts who conducted studies) than simply public opinion.

Originally Posted by Belthazor

Since this has been "accepted" even a couple hundred years ago and still is in many countries today, how can you say it will "never" be accepted in the future???
We as a country have changed definitions of words before to make things that were unacceptable, now acceptable.
Trying to predict human behavior in the future is surely impossible with any degree of accuracy at the moment.

This is also missing the point, which was about how a specific paedophile knows "that their desires will never be accepted as normal". Since it is about a specific person's specific desires, the "never" refers to their lifetime, and how they realize that they will never see their desires accepted as normal. You're talking about centuries, which is not the point LK was making.

This is missing the original point, which was that the reason behind the change wasn't just because of public pressure. There were indeed multiple earlier studies (p. 10-11 here) prior to the change which showed that homosexuality shouldn't be classified as a disorder.

I read your source. With regards to studies it says:
"Due to the taboos that surrounded the study of homosexuality (and sexuality in general), there were few empirical studies conducted on these topics in the 19th and early 20th century. Some of the first to emerge were the Kinsey studies of sexuality, conducted in the 1940s and 50s at the Institute of Sex Research".

So on where near when DSM was changed in 1973. Your source also says:
" The first researcher to empirically study homosexuals was Dr. Evelyn Hooker, a psychologist. In a first-hand oral account recorded by Marcus (2002), "

So, no new studies used to base changing DSM on homosexuality classification.
Further from your source:
" In 1970, gay rights activists took action and disrupted an APA convention in San Francisco, demanding to be allowed to voice their opinions. As the medical director of the APA at the time, Melvin Sabshin, recalls, there were lots of “hard words” exchanged between protestors and APA members, and it was so disruptive that the APA hired security to ensure order at future meetings (Lamberg, 1998). These protests were not ignored, and gay rights activists were allowed to have a gay-focused panel at the 1971 convention in Washington DC."

Obviously the protests were quite disruptive to a "community" that usually had much more professional, academic, mundane (see not controversial) conventions so as to be accepted in the "medical profession".....

Also, one of the determinations resulting from the panel was that mental disorders should be defined more accurately as having "regularly caused subjective distress or were associated with generalized impairment in social effectiveness of functioning" (p. 13),

Agreed. They decided to change criteria, pretty much again just by a simple majority vote of ONLY the " the Nomenclature Committee of the APA". This time, not all APA members got to vote or give input...
Your source:
"At the 1973 APA convention, the diagnosis of homosexuality was once again debated. However, at this convention, the Nomenclature Committee of the APA would be the ones to break the deadlock, by setting out to decide what exactly constituted a mental disorder".

So your phrasing of it being nothing more than the APA's vote in response to gay protests is highly inaccurate. The cause of the change was clearly much more (including results from studies and opinions of experts who conducted studies) than simply public opinion.

Again, public opinion and protest may have had an effect, but my point was/still is, it was changed by simple vote.

Ballots were mailed out to APA members (not all were returned of course), and the decision was made by majority vote and your source supports that:
"Although many members of the APA supported the decision to remove homosexuality from the DSM, there were also those who felt it was a hasty political decision that was not founded on research. Even Barbara Gittings, a proponent of the decision and member of the 1972 panel, noted that “it was never a medical decision... that’s why I think the action came so fast” (Marcus, 2002, p. 179). However, she felt that the inclusion of homosexuality in the DSM in the first place was also a political decision, and lacked evidence based on sound research."

Then, by more just simple majority voting:
"Perhaps as a concession to those against the 1973 decision, a new revision of the DSM, called DSM II, was published in 1974 and replaced homosexuality with Sexual Orientation Disturbance, which regarded homosexuality as an illness only if the person was “disturbed by, in conflict with, or wished to change their sexual orientation” (APA DSM II). "

This is also missing the point, which was about how a specific paedophile knows "that their desires will never be accepted as normal". Since it is about a specific person's specific desires, the "never" refers to their lifetime, and how they realize that they will never see their desires accepted as normal. You're talking about centuries, which is not the point LK was making.

You are confused. My quote you are referring to was aimed at Sig not LK, and Sigs post:
"Those who are attracted to pre-pubescent children, I think are more non-normative and more dangerous partly because they well know that their desires will never be accepted as normal."

Clearly is not referring to one person nor one persons lifetime.

Also, you missed the part where I said:
" and still is in many countries today"
So, not just 100yrs ago and life is changing faster every year. Kids may get more "rights" in the future or who knows. I find people that think they know what will happen even 40-50yrs from now pretty optimistic at being correct.

Re: Why is Pedophilia Categorized as a Disorder?

Originally Posted by Belthazor

Well, I don't think I said it was "just public pressure".

Again, your agreement with evensaul and phrasing of how it took place makes it pretty clear:
Evensaul: "APA has folded to activism when the heat became too great."
LK: "When an organization changes its stance on something, some people are quick to assume that it has "folded" under pressure."
You: "there is enough evidence to show it [public pressure] changing homosexuality from a disorder to not being one"

Again, this point LK was making was that not just public opinion was the cause. And I've provided evidence to support that not only public pressure was the cause for the change. For one, the source I offered clearly explains how the political climate at the time was one of the main reasons for the difficulty in changing the definition, which equates to "public pressure" in the opposite direction of those who were arguing to change it. Further, my source clearly indicates multiple studies and psychologists who participated in the special panel, who themselves had conducted studies which supported the change, all of which led to the final decision.

Originally Posted by Belthazor

My point was, it was a single, simple vote, and cited two credible sources as support.

This is a gross misrepresentation of the facts. Further, the way you point out that it was "simply" decided by "a single" vote of the APA community, seems to imply that there's something wrong with that.
Are you really saying that, if an authoritative group has a discussion about the available evidence, and then takes a vote afterwards to decide on whether to change something, that the decision is in some way invalid? How else do you think they should have done it? Do you have an actual argument for why the special discussion panel and vote would not be a valid way for an authoritative group to come to agreement on a decision? Seems pretty democratic to me.

Originally Posted by Belthazor

So on where near when DSM was changed in 1973. Your source also says:
" The first researcher to empirically study homosexuals was Dr. Evelyn Hooker, a psychologist. In a first-hand oral account recorded by Marcus (2002), "

Yes, Dr. Hooker described her study to "Marcus" in 2002. Her study started in 1953. What's your point here?

Originally Posted by Belthazor

So, no new studies used to base changing DSM on homosexuality classification.

Again, what's your point here? Are you saying that the studies conducted prior to the 70s were invalid for some reason, and could not be considered by the people discussing whether to change? "No new studies" seems to make sense, since the studies had already been done.

Originally Posted by Belthazor

Obviously the protests were quite disruptive

Yes, the protests were disruptive enough to get the APA to finally address the glaring issue, that they lacked justification for the classification, as indicated by existing studies. So what if they were disruptive? Can you really blame them, when multiple studies had already been conducted which showed that the APA was not justified in their categorization? The evidence was there, but the political climate at the time was clearly cause for the studies, and even discussion of the classification to be considered taboo. The fact that there were protests doesn't in any way invalidate the conclusion, which was reached through rational discourse via panel discussion, and further democratic vote. You seem to be phrasing the "no new studies" and "disruptive protests" in an effort to invalidate the APA's conclusion, but just repeating that there were no new studies and the protests were disruptive does nothing to show that.

Originally Posted by Belthazor

Agreed. They decided to change criteria, pretty much again just by a simple majority vote of ONLY the " the Nomenclature Committee of the APA".

You seem to be trying to point out an issue with the validity of their decision. So what if the Nomenclature Committee was the one to decide? How do you know that they weren't supposed to be the ones to decide according to the APA's organizational structure? Can you provide any support that it should've been someone other than the Nomenclature Committee?

Originally Posted by Belthazor

This time, not all APA members got to vote or give input...

You again seem to be saying there's something wrong with this, without actually supporting that there is. In any case, the vote which happened later included all APA members, allowing them to vote on whether the new definition should be kept, and the majority voted "Yes".

Originally Posted by Belthazor

Again, public opinion and protest may have had an effect, but my point was/still is, it was changed by simple vote.

Your "point" is nothing more than a misinterpretation of the facts. You keep saying it was a simple vote as if there's something wrong with that, and yet have provided no support for what's actually wrong with it.

Also, don't forget that your "point" was in response to LK's statement: "When an organization changes its stance on something, some people are quick to assume that it has "folded" under pressure". So by making your "point" that the change happened via vote (misinterpretation - it was a committee which changed the definition following the discussion panels), and by making your "point" that there was disruptive protests, your are essentially arguing that this somehow invalidates LK's statement that it's wrong to think that the APA's decision to change the definition was "folding under pressure".

Unfortunately, you have not supported that the way the APA went about deciding to change the definition was wrong or bad.
And further, you have not supported that the disruptive protests directly caused the change in the definition. A simple look at the chronology shows this quite clearly. The protests were mentioned as happening in 70 and 71, but the panels and discussion were already happening 71 and continued to 73. This indicates that the only effect the protest had was to initiate the discussion, which makes sense, since after the protest, the activists were able to make their case in the panel discussions the following years, and it was this process which ultimately led to the decision to change the definition.

Originally Posted by Belthazor

Ballots were mailed out to APA members (not all were returned of course), and the decision was made by majority vote and your source supports that:
"Although many members of the APA supported the decision to remove homosexuality from the DSM, there were also those who felt it was a hasty political decision that was not founded on research. Even Barbara Gittings, a proponent of the decision and member of the 1972 panel, noted that “it was never a medical decision... that’s why I think the action came so fast” (Marcus, 2002, p. 179). However, she felt that the inclusion of homosexuality in the DSM in the first place was also a political decision, and lacked evidence based on sound research."

Yup. Your point?

Originally Posted by Belthazor

Then, by more just simple majority voting:
"Perhaps as a concession to those against the 1973 decision, a new revision of the DSM, called DSM II, was published in 1974 and replaced homosexuality with Sexual Orientation Disturbance, which regarded homosexuality as an illness only if the person was “disturbed by, in conflict with, or wished to change their sexual orientation” (APA DSM II). "

Again, your point?

Originally Posted by Belthazor

Note, no new studies or information

... *Sigh* ... your point?

Originally Posted by Belthazor

You are confused. My quote you are referring to was aimed at Sig not LK, and Sigs post.

Whatever. It's irrelevant who made the statement.

Originally Posted by Belthazor

Clearly is not referring to one person nor one persons lifetime.

Again, the statement refers to "their desires". Your focus on changes over centuries is so absurd, as you're essentially saying that the paedophile's concern as expressed by Sig is that their desires will not be accepted by people after they're dead. Clearly, if someone has desires which are not accepted by society now, and this fact is cause for that person's distress, then whether society will accept it at some point in the future after that person is dead would not be a factor that person's distress.

Originally Posted by Belthazor

Also, you missed the part where I said:
" and still is in many countries today"

I didn't miss that - it's just not relevant when discussing someone who lives in a society which doesn't accept their desires. If you're talking about a society which accepts those desires, then you're by definition not talking about the person referred to in Sig's statement.

Originally Posted by Belthazor

So, not just 100yrs ago and life is changing faster every year. Kids may get more "rights" in the future or who knows. I find people that think they know what will happen even 40-50yrs from now pretty optimistic at being correct.

Again, you miss Sig's point, which is that a paedophile attracted to prepubescent children likely realizes that, during their lifetime (the only time period during which "their desires" exist, and, most importantly, the only time period during which any acceptance of their desires would matter to them), it's unlikely that a shift to acceptance would happen in a society which currently doesn't accept it. "Who knows" doesn't make it any more likely, especially since the level of acceptance in societies which currently don't accept it have not indicated any shift in the opposite direction. In societies which don't accept paedophilia, it hasn't been accepted for a very long time, and there's no indication that his will change, and a paedophile's realization of that leading to them knowing full well that society will never accept their desires (in their lifetime) is what Sig was referring to.

Re: Why is Pedophilia Categorized as a Disorder?

Originally Posted by futureboy

You: "there is enough evidence to show it [public pressure] changing homosexuality from a disorder to not being one"

Ya, my last few words got cut off at the parenthesis. It should have read more like:
"In the instance of API & DSM, I think there is enough evidence to show it changing homosexuality from a disorder to not being one, was not based on scientific study/research/etc... (that does not assume it should have been classified as a disorder in the first place, just that is how it got removed).
http://behaviorismandmentalhealth.co...hat-went-away/"

However, the link and quote I provided was very clear on the subject:
" What’s noteworthy about this is that the removal of homosexuality from the list of mental illnesses was not triggered by some scientific breakthrough. There was no new fact or set of facts that stimulated this major change."
Your source also agrees with this assessment.

Do you have an actual argument for why the special discussion panel and vote would not be a valid way for an authoritative group to come to agreement on a decision? Seems pretty democratic to me.

Democratic yes. Scientific no.
Should DSM be based on scientific study or opinions/majority vote without regard to study, since in this case no new information was presented for this "democratic decision"?

First of all, the "panel" you are referencing ONLY changed the definition of disorder, not whether homosexuality was a disorders.
Second, if these decisions were not based on new scientific research why would they make the change? After all, these decisions were made for a reason and if science wasn't the reason I don't think it matters too much what the reason was AND your own source says it was done for other than scientific reasons..
I am open to other valid criteria not related to new research etc.

Can you support that disorders in DSM are typically just voted into/out of existence??? Or do the authors usually rely on research, studies, peer reviewed papers etc prior to a diagnosis being included/excluded in DSM...

I didn't miss that - it's just not relevant when discussing someone who lives in a society which doesn't accept their desires. If you're talking about a society which accepts those desires, then you're by definition not talking about the person referred to in Sig's statement.

Sig was basically saying that no society would condone this behavior, and I was pointing out that there have been in the past and currently are today, societies that condone this, so there is little reason to conclude none will in the future.

Again, you miss Sig's point, which is that a paedophile attracted to prepubescent children likely realizes that, during their lifetime (the only time period during which "their desires" exist, and, most importantly, the only time period during which any acceptance of their desires would matter to them), it's unlikely that a shift to acceptance would happen in a society which currently doesn't accept it.

Let us look at his whole quote then:
" -- Furthermore --

I actually think that some degree of pedophilia is not that unusual. Those who are attracted to youth, say, beyond the age of 12 are not that abnormal in an instinctual sense. In many primitive cultures, marriages happen at those ages. And technically they may well be sexually mature. It's just in our more complicated society, it is not yet an age we deem adult and thus outside of adult sexual relationships.

Those who are attracted to pre-pubescent children, I think are more non-normative and more dangerous partly because they well know that their desires will never be accepted as normal. Of course, anyone who breaks the law and preys upon children of any age is deserving of punishment for violation of the law, social order, and the rights of their victims. "

In societies which don't accept paedophilia, it hasn't been accepted for a very long time, and there's no indication that his will change,...

What is a "long time"?
It was accepted in America not many generations ago...
Children are granted more rights by the courts all the time. I don't see a child be granted the "right" to choose who and when to have sex with as that far fetched given the leanings of our courts the last several decades...???

Rather than being condescending, I would think you should take your argument to something more like:
"homosexuality was removed from DSM the same way it got put in, without scientific study/input/research/etc."
or perhaps
"homosexuality was originally included in DSM for reasons other than science so it was summarily removed when the over site was acknowledged"

At least that is supportable. So far you are just giving me your opinion as to why it was removed, unless you have been saving some support you haven't presented yet???

Re: Why is Pedophilia Categorized as a Disorder?

Originally Posted by Belthazor

Ya, my last few words got cut off at the parenthesis. It should have read more like:
"In the instance of API & DSM, I think there is enough evidence to show it changing homosexuality from a disorder to not being one, was not based on scientific study/research/etc... (that does not assume it should have been classified as a disorder in the first place, just that is how it got removed).
http://behaviorismandmentalhealth.co...hat-went-away/"

Again, "how it got removed" is through a process of discussion, where numerous viewpoints as well as the studies were considered to reach the decision.

Originally Posted by Belthazor

However, the link and quote I provided was very clear on the subject:
" Whatís noteworthy about this is that the removal of homosexuality from the list of mental illnesses was not triggered by some scientific breakthrough. There was no new fact or set of facts that stimulated this major change."

Again, my source provides the facts about studies that had already been done which supported the decision, and the discussion panel with psychiatrists in favour of the change. Your source simply states the above as opinion. Further, the source has the same non-argument ("no new studies" - oh noes!), as if there is something wrong with the studies which had already been done.

Originally Posted by Belthazor

Yet you fail to show where I took anything out of context nor rebutted my support so my point still stands.

Nor did I say you took anything out of context. What I said was that the way you phrased it grossly misrepresents the facts, and provided a source with detailed facts that refute your phrasing of the way the change took place.

Originally Posted by Belthazor

Should DSM be based on scientific study or opinions/majority vote without regard to study, since in this case no new information was presented for this "democratic decision"?

Again, the decision wasn't made without regard to any studies. Did you not read the part where I clearly referenced the panel which had actual psychiatrists who had done actual studies?
And really, you need to stop this "no new studies" nonsense. There were studies which had been done, and those studies were considered as part of the decision-making process. One could easay that, since the panel discussions were the first time the studies were seriously considered, they were "new".

Originally Posted by Belthazor

First of all, the "panel" you are referencing ONLY changed the definition of disorder, not whether homosexuality was a disorders.

From my source:They determined that mental disorders should be defined as having "regularly caused subjective distress or were associated with generalized impairment in social effectiveness of functioning" (Drescher, 2009). Thus, they concluded that homosexuality was not a mental disorder according to their definition of the term, as it did not by itself cause homosexuals distress and had not been shown to impair social functioning. So, on December 15, 1973, the APA's Board of Trustees officially removed homosexuality from the DSM.

Originally Posted by Belthazor

Second, if these decisions were not based on new scientific research why would they make the change? After all, these decisions were made for a reason and if science wasn't the reason I don't think it matters too much what the reason was AND your own source says it was done for other than scientific reasons..
I am open to other valid criteria not related to new research etc.

Again, the discussion panel included psychiatrists, some of whom had themselves studied homosexuality. What do you think they were discussing? Are you honestly going to say that nobody at all, let alone the psychiatrists themselves, mentioned during the panel discussions any of the studies which had already been done, let alone their own studies of homosexuality? The mind boggles ...

Originally Posted by Belthazor

Can you support that disorders in DSM are typically just voted into/out of existence??? Or do the authors usually rely on research, studies, peer reviewed papers etc prior to a diagnosis being included/excluded in DSM...

No, this is little more than a shifting of the burden. The lead-up to the decision involved members of the APA and its board having multiple panel discussions over the course of at least two years before the Nomenclature dept (who else?) updated the definition, and later the APA allowed its members to vote on whether to keep it definition. They kept it, and so it remained without issues or protest. You are the one who is trying to cast a negative or invalid light onto how the decision was made. You need to support your assertion that there was something wrong with how the decision was made.

Originally Posted by Belthazor

1. This shows you have great difficulty admitting when you are wrong...

In what way did I deny I made a mistake? I merely pointed out that who made the statement is irrelevant.

Originally Posted by Belthazor

2. The relevance is, they were talking about two different things, so my response doesn't apply to both equally.

Dude, I quoted Sig's statement verbatim and made the mistake of referring to it as LK's statement. You're literally bickering about a statement I made after the point I was making which is entirely irrelevant to what I was pointing out: "You're talking about centuries, which is not the point LK was making."

Originally Posted by Belthazor

Sig was basically saying that no society would condone this behavior, and I was pointing out that there have been in the past and currently are today, societies that condone this, so there is little reason to conclude none will in the future.

While I won't pretend to know exactly what Sig meant with his statement, I'll point out that his statement makes perfect sense if you consider that he was referring to the paedophile's recognition that they will never see a time when their desires are accepted, as I already explained.

Originally Posted by Belthazor

Once again he is clearly not referring to one individual.

So, in one paragraph, he's talking about how in primitive cultures, marriages and sexual activity was normal at around age 12 and above.

And in the next paragraph, he's talking specifically about pre-pubescent paedophilia, and how a paedohpile knows their desires will never be accepted.

And you think this means that he's saying that he thinks pre-pube-paedos know that no society ever would accept their desires?

Sure thing, dude.
In any case, I've already explained how his statement makes perfect sense on the interpretation that he's talking about how a paedophile will never see their desire to be sexually active with pre-pubescent children accepted.

Originally Posted by Belthazor

What is a "long time"?
It was accepted in America not many generations ago...

Sure, multiple generations would be enough time to instill a feeling of stasis.

Originally Posted by Belthazor

Children are granted more rights by the courts all the time. I don't see a child be granted the "right" to choose who and when to have sex with as that far fetched given the leanings of our courts the last several decades...???

Not only do I not agree with you, but this is also not support for the claim that it could change. Could you provide any example of these "more rights" being granted "all the time" to kids that comes even close to being a change similar to accepting sexual activity with a pre-pubescent person?

Originally Posted by Belthazor

Rather than being condescending, I would think you should take your argument to something more like

I'm sorry, but it really was a question of what your point was, since you've been repeatedly making quasi-criticisms of how the decision was made without actually arguing why, essentially just parroting Phil Hickey's article, which itself contains little more than opinion. So some folks thought it was a hasty decision. So what? Is it any surprise at all that, at a time when the political climate made it nearly impossible to have a valuable discussion about the status of homosexuality, there were those who wouldn't agree with the decision?

Originally Posted by Belthazor

At least that is supportable. So far you are just giving me your opinion as to why it was removed, unless you have been saving some support you haven't presented yet???

I've presented all the support necessary. The protests resulted in the "foot-in-the-door" of the discussion panels & debates discussing previous studies, which resulted in the decision to change it.
As the APA board of trustees stated at the time:
"By itself, homosexuality does not meet the criteria for being a psychiatric disorder ... We will no longer insist on a label of sickness for individuals who insist that they are well and demonstrate no generalized impairment in social effectiveness."https://www.nytimes.com/1973/12/16/a...l-illness.html
To accept your argument, one would have to believe that they were able to determine that homosexuals "demonstrate no generalized impairment in social effectiveness" without considering any actual studies.

Re: Why is Pedophilia Categorized as a Disorder?

DSM-V explains that a mental disorder is "...a paraphilia that is currently causing distress or impairment to the individual or a paraphilia whose satisfaction has entailed personal harm, or risk of harm, to others". Some posters in this thread say that last part of "personal harm, or risk of harm" is why pedophilia is a mental disorder. Seems to me that the predatory sexual behavior of Catholic priests against young boys is an example of harm, and continued risk of harm to others. So going by the arguments for pedophilia being a mental disorder, so to should homosexuality. Or, the DSM-V classification of pedophilia is wrong, and they should both be considered sexual variants and not mental disorders. I'm just arguing for consistency.

"If we lose freedom here, there is no place to escape to. This is the last stand on Earth." - Ronald Reagan

Re: Why is Pedophilia Categorized as a Disorder?

Originally Posted by evensaul

DSM-V explains that a mental disorder is "...a paraphilia that is currently causing distress or impairment to the individual or a paraphilia whose satisfaction has entailed personal harm, or risk of harm, to others". Some posters in this thread say that last part of "personal harm, or risk of harm" is why pedophilia is a mental disorder. Seems to me that the predatory sexual behavior of Catholic priests against young boys is an example of harm, and continued risk of harm to others. So going by the arguments for pedophilia being a mental disorder, so to should homosexuality.

I don't see how that follows. Catholic priests molesting young boys is pedophilia, not homosexuality. If you mean it's homosexuality because the predator and victims are of the same gender, then by that logic because some predators attack young victims of the opposite sex, heterosexuality should be considered a paraphilia as well.

Obviously when looking at homosexuality and heterosexuality, we look to see if the general attraction is harmful or if engaged in minus the addition of a paraphilias (such as one partner being a child or the sex being nonconsensual) is harmful. And there is nothing particularly harmful with attraction to other adults of either gender nor engaging in consensual sexual activity with someone of either respective gender. Therefore neither homosexuality nor heterosexuality qualifies as a paraphilia.

Re: Why is Pedophilia Categorized as a Disorder?

I don't see how that follows. Catholic priests molesting young boys is pedophilia, not homosexuality.

Then why are 75% of the victims postpubescent, meaning the abuse was not pedophilia?

Originally Posted by mican333

If you mean it's homosexuality because the predator and victims are of the same gender, then by that logic because some predators attack young victims of the opposite sex, heterosexuality should be considered a paraphilia as well.

Very good. So homosexuality, pedophilia and heterosexuality must all be classified the same, to be consistent. I agree with you.

Originally Posted by mican333

Obviously when looking at homosexuality and heterosexuality, we look to see if the general attraction is harmful or if engaged in minus the addition of other paraphilias is harmful.

Nope, that isn't what is done with pedophilia. Attraction to the very young is in itself considered a paraphilia because of possible harm to others. You must be consistent with all three, as you logically concluded above.

Originally Posted by mican333

And there is nothing particularly harmful with attraction to other adults of either gender nor engaging in consensual sexual activity with someone of either respective gender.

There is nothing particularly harmful about attraction to the prepubescent. Be consistent.

Re: Why is Pedophilia Categorized as a Disorder?

Then why are 75% of the victims postpubescent, meaning the abuse was not pedophilia?

I don't see the relevance of the question. I certainly never argued that Catholic priests never engage in immoral/illegal sexual activity that does not qualify as pedophilia.

Originally Posted by evensaul

There is nothing particularly harmful about attraction to the prepubescent. Be consistent.

I am consistent.

I am saying that if an attraction, WHEN ACTED UPON, is consistently harmful, then it qualifies as a paraphilia. Likewise that is how it's defined in the link you provided - they just say "whose satisfaction" instead of "when acted upon".

Therefore pedophilia is a paraphilia and heterosexuality/homosexuality is not.

Re: Why is Pedophilia Categorized as a Disorder?

You claimed that molestation by Catholic priests is paraphilia. That is false, because 75% of the victims are post-pubescent.

Originally Posted by mican333

No. One, when practiced, is consistently harmful. The other two are not.

Homosexuality and heterosexuality, when practiced, are often harmful, as proven with the Catholic priests.

Originally Posted by mican333

Those are differences that warrant differing classifications.

Your opinion is noted.

Originally Posted by mican333

I didn't say there was anything harmful about an attraction that is not acted upon.

Right, which is the case with pedophilia.

Originally Posted by mican333

I'm saying that there is a classification of attractions that, when acted upon. does cause harm to others.

Which is real convenient and useful, politically/socially.

Originally Posted by mican333

Your choice to ignore or discount the "when acted upon" aspect of a paraphilia is your choice. But I choose to not ignore that aspect and therefore am being consistent when I separate pedophilia from heterosexuality and homosexuality.

Right. You're making a personal choice to add a factor into the process of categorization, and you then set the bar at a point where pedophilia can't clear it. Just like DSM-V.

Just be honest, you're arguing the details to match your gut level bias towards pedophilies. In post #23 you wrote "Whatever clinical term you may accept or reject, you DO agree that there is something wrong in this guy's head, right? And it likewise makes sense to put a label on his dysfunction, right?" So you'll argue whatever it takes to label pedophiles as mentally ill and dangerous. And that is exactly how homosexuality was viewed and classified sixty years ago. I see no difference.

Now, can someone explain why necrophilia is classified as a mental disorder? Is it just the "ick factor"? Most people would say "Ewww! Nobody in their right mind would want to have sex with a dead body!" Isn't it really just that simple? Something must be wrong in the head with those people, so let's label them as mentally ill.

"If we lose freedom here, there is no place to escape to. This is the last stand on Earth." - Ronald Reagan

Re: Why is Pedophilia Categorized as a Disorder?

Originally Posted by evensaul

You claimed that molestation by Catholic priests is paraphilia. That is false, because 75% of the victims are post-pubescent.

I said "Catholic priests molesting young boys is pedophilia". I have to say that you often do a poor job of telling me what my argument is. In the future, please provide a quote of an actual argument if you are going to tell me that I said a particular something.

Originally Posted by evensaul

Homosexuality and heterosexuality, when practiced, are often harmful, as proven with the Catholic priests.

A small minority of sexual acts between post-pubescents, like rape (which is what underage sex qualifies as), being harmful does not lead to the conclusion that sexual acts between adults are generally harmful.

Originally Posted by evensaul

Which is real convenient and useful, politically/socially.

And likewise makes a lot of sense assuming we care about the person's potential victims.

Let me put it this way. Shouldn't we treat pedophilia if we can? If there is someone with such attractions, doesn't it make sense for that person to get treatment so he may overcome his attraction or learn how to refrain from acting on it? Such treatment, if successful, would help protect the potential victims of pedophiles. But of course one cannot treat a disorder without first classifying it as a disorder.

So there is a legitimate interest in treating pedophiles so they don't act on their attractions and therefore there is a legitimate reason to label such attractions as a disorder worthy of treatment.

Now, is there any legitimate reason to treat adults to not act on their sexual desires regarding other adults? Of course not.

So there is the difference. Definitions aside, we have a legitimate reason to medically separate pedophiles from heterosexuals and homosexuals. Or do you disagree with the notion of trying to influence those who have an attraction to children to not try to have sex with them?

I would say that my argument is based on the premise that a desire to rape children is a problem that is worthy of medical attention (for such attention might decrease the odds of one acting on such desires). And it's not the gut-level "icky" factor that is the basis of the premise but the rational observation that raping children harms children.

Originally Posted by evensaul

In post #23 you wrote "Whatever clinical term you may accept or reject, you DO agree that there is something wrong in this guy's head, right? And it likewise makes sense to put a label on his dysfunction, right?" So you'll argue whatever it takes to label pedophiles as mentally ill and dangerous. And that is exactly how homosexuality was viewed and classified sixty years ago. I see no difference.

So you don't see the difference in raping children and two adults having consensual sex?

I'm not twisting things to get to the conclusion that raping children is a bad and harmful thing. In fact, that's the starting premise of any and all arguments I may have regarding pedophilia.

And I understand that there is a difference between wanting to rape children and actually doing it but the fact is the desire often leads to the action. If the desire never lead to the action then I might agree that the desire should not be categorized as it is. But OBVIOUSLY sometimes the desire does lead to the action and therefore we have a good reason to treat those who have the desire and try to get them to either not have the desire or not act on it.

Re: Why is Pedophilia Categorized as a Disorder?

Originally Posted by mican333

I said "Catholic priests molesting young boys is pedophilia". I have to say that you often do a poor job of telling me what my argument is. In the future, please provide a quote of an actual argument if you are going to tell me that I said a particular something.

You thought it was all with young boys. And now you pretend otherwise, and ignore the other 75%. Save the criticism for someone who can't read your ignorance and disingenuous approach.

Originally Posted by mican333

A small minority of sexual acts between post-pubescents, like rape (which is what underage sex qualifies as), being harmful does not lead to the conclusion that such sexual acts are generally harmful.

Support that it is a small minority. Then support why such a minority should be ignored.

Originally Posted by mican333

And likewise makes a lot of sense assuming we care about the person's potential victims.

You don't care about potential victims. Again, be honest. You only care about not having homosexuality lumped in with pedophilia and necrophilia. You're so transparent, it's laughable.

Originally Posted by mican333

Let me put it this way. Shouldn't we treat pedophilia if we can? If there is someone with such attractions, doesn't it make sense for that person to get treatment so he may overcome his attraction or learn how to refrain from acting on it? Such treatment, if successful, would help protect the potential victims of pedophiles. But of course one cannot treat a disorder without first classifying it as a disorder. So there is a legitimate interest in treating pedophiles so they don't act on their attractions and therefore there is a legitimate reason to label such attractions as a disorder worthy of treatment.

And yet you make the same suggestion - treatment to cure the mental disorder - that some have proposed for homosexuals. It's actually pretty funny!

Originally Posted by mican333

If the desire never lead to the action then I might agree that the desire should not be categorized as it is. But OBVIOUSLY sometimes the desire does lead to the action and therefore we have a good reason to treat those who have the desire and try to get them to either not have the desire or not act on it.

But you would refuse to apply that same reasoning to homosexual (or heterosexual) abuse of postpubescent minors. I think you're a lost cause here, because you're arguing based on your Ick Factor and not rational, logical thought.

"If we lose freedom here, there is no place to escape to. This is the last stand on Earth." - Ronald Reagan